Researcher profile

Yaolin Shi

Yaolin Shi contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Machine Learning Percolation Model

Recent advances in machine learning have become increasingly popular in the applications of phase transitions and critical phenomena. By machine learning approaches, we try to identify the physical characteristics in the two-dimensional percolation model. To achieve this, we adopt Monte Carlo simulation to generate dataset at first, and then we employ several approaches to analyze the dataset. Four kinds of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), one variational autoencoder (VAE), one convolutional VAE (cVAE), one principal component analysis (PCA), and one $k$-means are used for identifying order parameter, the permeability, and the critical transition point. The former three kinds of CNNs can simulate the two order parameters and the permeability with high accuracy, and good extrapolating performance. The former two kinds of CNNs have high anti-noise ability. To validate the robustness of the former three kinds of CNNs, we also use the VAE and the cVAE to generate new percolating configurations to add perturbations into the raw configurations. We find that there is no difference by using the raw or the perturbed configurations to identify the physical characteristics, under the prerequisite of corresponding labels. In the case of lacking labels, we use unsupervised learning to detect the physical characteristics. The PCA, a classical unsupervised learning, performs well when identifying the permeability but fails to deduce order parameter. Hence, we apply the fourth kinds of CNNs with different preset thresholds, and identify a new order parameter and the critical transition point. Our findings indicate that the effectiveness of machine learning still needs to be evaluated in the applications of phase transitions and critical phenomena.

preprint2020arXiv

Comparison of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Karst Spring Discharge in North China

The quantitative analyses of karst spring discharge typically rely on physical-based models, which are inherently uncertain. To improve the understanding of the mechanism of spring discharge fluctuation and the relationship between precipitation and spring discharge, three machine learning methods were developed to reduce the predictive errors of physical-based groundwater models, simulate the discharge of Longzici Spring's karst area, and predict changes in the spring on the basis of long time series precipitation monitoring and spring water flow data from 1987 to 2018. The three machine learning methods included two artificial neural networks (ANNs), namely, multilayer perceptron (MLP) and long short-term memory-recurrent neural network (LSTM-RNN), and support vector regression (SVR). A normalization method was introduced for data preprocessing to make the three methods robust and computationally efficient. To compare and evaluate the capability of the three machine learning methods, the mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were selected as the performance metrics for these methods. Simulations showed that MLP reduced MSE, MAE, and RMSE to 0.0010, 0.0254, and 0.0318, respectively. Meanwhile, LSTM-RNN reduced MSE to 0.0010, MAE to 0.0272, and RMSE to 0.0329. Moreover, the decrease in MSE, MAE, and RMSE were 0.0910, 0.1852, and 0.3017, respectively, for SVR. Results indicated that MLP performed slightly better than LSTM-RNN, and MLP and LSTM-RNN performed considerably better than SVR. Furthermore, ANNs were demonstrated to be prior machine learning methods for simulating and predicting karst spring discharge.